The appellant, claiming ownership of a seized vehicle used for transporting illicit liquor, filed an appeal seeking its release after the High Court of Gujarat dismissed his earlier application. The vehicle, along with 1240.200 liters of English liquor, was seized in connection with an FIR registered under various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and the IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant had improperly approached the High Court without first filing an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. in the concerned criminal court. The court also clarified the statutory framework for the custody and confiscation of property during a criminal trial.

1. Case Background: The appellant sought the release of a vehicle seized under FIR No. 11200038231465/2023 for transporting illicit liquor without a permit. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the initial application, leading to the present appeal.

2. Seizure of Vehicle: The vehicle was seized by police during a routine patrol based on a tip-off. It was alleged that the vehicle was transporting 1240.200 liters of English liquor without a permit, leading to the registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and IPC.

3. Legal Provisions: The State of Gujarat contended that under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the release of the vehicle was barred until the final judgment of the court, given the quantity of seized liquor exceeded the prescribed limit.

4. Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) Overview: Section 451 of Cr.P.C. grants the criminal court the power to pass orders for the custody or disposal of property during an inquiry or trial. The court noted that the appellant should have approached the appropriate criminal court under this provision.

5. High Court's Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing the appellant's failure to approach the proper jurisdictional court under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked when statutory remedies are available.

6. Statutory Interpretation of Section 98(2): The court highlighted the need for a harmonious construction of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, clarifying that it is not an absolute bar but must be understood in conjunction with other statutory provisions.

7. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with the clarification that the appellant may approach the appropriate criminal court for the release of the vehicle. The court reiterated the importance of following the correct legal procedures for the custody and disposal of seized property.